Pretentious Elitism

While we are comparing the National Enquirer with supposedly more professional "news" magazines like Time, I want to make one more point. Who was it that alerted us to the fact that John Edwards, the pretentious elitist who ran as V.P. candidate with perhaps the most pretentious elitist ever to appear on the American political scene, John Kerry, was screwing around on his wife while she was supporting him, despite the fact that she was suffering with cancer? That's right, it was the National Enquirer.

Okay, maybe Al Gore equals Kerry in pretentious elitism. Mike Rosen has more on that subject in today's Denver Post.

Which publication is trash?

In the supermarket the other day I noticed Time Magazine has published a special edition about the year 1989. Of course there was Tiennamen Square, with the famous photo of the lone man standing in front of the line of tanks. Then, there were photos of Germans tearing down the Berlin wall. Of course, there was a photo of our beloved President Ronald Reagan demanding that Mr. Gorbachav "tear down this wall!

Then I started to read the accompanying story. The bastards that wrote the story pointed out that Reagan gave his speech several months before the wall was actually torn down, and that there was "no evidence" that Reagan's words and actions had anything to do with the tearing down of the wall! I put that piece of crap magazine down and picked up the National Enquirer! At least I remember that the Enquirer got it right about O.J. Simpson. Remember when Simpson said he would never wear those "ugly ass" Bruno Magli shoes that the killer of his ex-wife wore? The Enquirer dug down into their archives and found a photo of Simpson prowling the sidelines as a sideline football reporter for NBC, wearing Bruno Magli shoes, the same size as the killer's footprints!

Wake up, America!

How the hell can this happen at Fort Hood? Diversity and multi-culturalism have even infected our military. You just cannot tell me that nobody ever heard this insane psychiatrist spout off his insane jihadist-supporting views. He openly expressed his admiration of suicide bombers. He urged all infidels to convert to Islam. It does not surprise me that no other mental health professional who knew this man would speak up. The entire mental health profession walks lock-step in multi-cultural political correctness, conditioned by their training to ignore warning signs. Do we now get to hold them responsible to some degree?

One person interviewed on the base said, "I wish his name was Smith." What? So your illusions about the benefits of multi-culturalism could not be challenged? They say he must have had PTSD: from what, living in Maryland and Texas? Don't tell me this despicable piece of garbage was a victim of any psychiatric disease! The only mental illness I can see in all of this is what I hear coming from our media today, pretending that Islamic ideology is not a danger to us. One media pundit coined a new psychiatric diagnosis: PretraumatS Stress Disorder, because the killer had recently been told that he would soon be deployed overseas! I kid you not! As Mark Stein noted today, don't worry, those of you with Pretraumatic Stress Disorder: Obama/Pelosicare will cover it!

Why is our military unarmed? I understand that the heroine who finally shot this scum was a female civilian police officer!

Will this finally wake up our people?

Are elections relevant?

Herbert Schlossberg shows in his 1983 book Idols for Destruction how the czars and bureaucrats of the Utopian elite "cash in on our guilt" for polluting the earth, for example. They "do not merely regulate industries, disburse funds, and enforce laws;" they determine what choices we have in almost all areas of our lives. But, Schlossberg reminds us that "there is a higher law that relativizes all statutes and sovereigns. And that is a law which says above all that the state is not God."

Two states held gubernatorial elections yesterday. Voters in both states reversed the 2008 electoral trends. Or, did they? In 2008 voters threw out the bums who had been running things. Now Obama and his fellow Dems have held control of the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives for nine months. Voters once again voted for candidates representing the party out of power.

The question remaining, though, is this: are elections increasingly irrelevant to what government actually does? Has the "new class" found a vehicle for giving its values the force of law? By becoming czars and utilizing administrative fiat "to bring their socialist vision into being" will the elites make sure that no significant changes in the direction of liberty actually take place in Virginia, New Jersey, and the rest of the country? Or, will the tea party movement continue to grow until we get a government of, by, and for the people?

The next year is going to be very interesting. For example, what will Obama now do in Copenhagen next month? Will he sign away our sovereignty on the issue of global climate control?

The illusions of compassion and rationality

I am amazed at the prescience of Herbert Schlossberg. Writing Idols for Destruction in 1983, he has captured what has happened to America in 2009! He writes about how unelected leftist intellectual elites gain power in bureaucracies. Like the Pharisees of old, they convince the people that they have wisdom no others possess. Never ask them about their track record, though, writes Schlossberg, because "it is a series of disguised disasters; just accept on faith that they have the secret to life." Their expertise is not value-free. They attach their expertise to a social movement, such as Marxism or socialism. The compassion and rationality they seem to promote are illusions; it is all about power and control. Again, Schlossberg: "The elites and the bureacracy both prosper as the private sector declines and as the state absorbs and expends a greater proportion of the national wealth. They seek to crush all opposition; their rule is incompatible with freedom."

Are bureaucrats people who are just silently obeying orders? No, writes Schlossberg, bureaucrats believe they are the law! The way to bring the socialist vision into being is through administrative fiat. Elections become increasingly irrelevant to what the government actually does. "Bureaucrats shuffle not paper, but people," writes Schlossberg. Suddenly we wake up to find that we have left ourselves defenseless against our supposed protectors!

"Disheartened?" Or "Angry?"

Peggy Noonan is given a prominent place in the Wall Street Journal's opinion pages, because she always seems to have something important to say. In yesterday's column she wonders how this administration could be so "callous" that they don't even seem to care that so many people have become "disheartened." Rush Limbaugh corrected Peggy: "We are not disheartened; we are angry!"

Noonan further seems incredulous that the administration doesn't even seem "worried about the impact of what they're doing." I've got news for you, Peggy: looking at results or consequences of their programs is never part of the liberals' agenda!

To deal with callous people in power, we need the leadership of equally aggressive, equally determined people. People like Rush Limbaugh. People like Peggy Noonan can write about it from a distance, safely ensconced in their libraries.

"The greater the pretentions to righteousness, the greater the potential for evil"

If Barack Obama is the savior, then salvation can be found only in becoming a follower of Obama and his government allies. Herbert Schlossberg explains in Idols for Destruction that the state becomes an idol in the hands of the "theologians of political redemption." As much as we might prefer to live in a free society, we must now learn to accept a social order in which some people force their conception of the "good life" on the rest of us. This coercion is necessary for the achievement of "progress." Try as you might to hold on to your freedom, you must come to realize that we have many "crises" from which we need to be saved. Schlossberg writes that "it was once considered immoral to take a person's property for the benefit of others by threatening the use of force, but now inequality is advanced as a greater evil than theft." State confiscation is advanced to the "pinnacle of moral rectitude."

Although Obama seems to be in large part a pragmatist, he, Reid, and Pelosi do seem convinced that what they are trying to do in nationalizing health care will be good for us, thus strengthening their determination. Schlossberg reminds us that "Jesus told His followers that their persecutors would think they were serving God (John 16:2). Solzhenitsyn tells of Eleanor Roosevelt's visit to the labor camp where he was incarcerated. Schlossberg notes that "she reported that it was a humane institution for curing criminals."

What is the affinity evil has with professions of good? C.S. Lewis, in an essay he called "Lillies that Fester," argued that the more pretentious the visions of rulers, the more defiling the rule is likely to be. If there were ever a ruler more pretentious than Obama, I cannot think who it might be.

Schlossberg writes,

"The paternal state not only feeds its children, but nurtures, educates, comforts, and disciplines them, providing all they need for their security. This appears to be a mildly insulting way to treat adults, but it is really a great crime because it transforms the state from being a gift of God, given to protect us against violence, into an idol. It supplies us with all blessings, and we look to it for all our needs. Once we sink to that level, as Lewis says, there is no point in telling state officials to mind their own business. "Our whole lives are their business," (C.S. Lewis, in God in the Dock). The paternalism of the state is that of the bad parent who wants his children dependent on him forever. That is an evil impulse. The good parent prepares his children for independence, trains them to make responsible decisions, knows that he harms them by not helping them break loose. The paternal state thrives on dependency. When the dependents free themselves, it loses power. It is, therefore, parasitic on the very persons whom it turns into parasites. Thus, the state and its dependents march symbiotically to destruction."

Obama's Director of Communications, Anita Dunn, gave a speech to high school graduates in which she extolled Chairman Mao for his determination and perseverance. Mao, like Obama, was expected to save his people from all problems. A common proverb was, "We must study the works of Chairman Mao each day. If we miss only one day the problems pile up. If we miss two days we fall back. If we miss three days, we can no longer live."

How about the way Obama is ubiquitous as our Big Brother or our Father, Mr. Cool, while Rahm Emanuel's obscenities propel the engine driving the bus and pulling the strings. To these builders of utopia, everything is possible, and they feel free to attack anyone who raises questions (Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck). Schlossberg warns us that "the greater the pretentions to righteousness, it seems, the greater the potential for evil."

The Christian perspective versus the humanitarian perspective

Does toleration have limits? Are weakness, impotence, and dependence signs of moral superiority? Are all cultures equal in value? Are Christian values superior to any others? Should we discriminate against our most productive citizens? Who are they? Is the exercise of power the real aim of humanitarians who use the state to promulgate their policies? If an older adult is suffering from poor health, should we "ration" his health care, increase his suffering, and perhaps let him die? Is all human life sacred, including unborn babies, disabled people and old people?

The above questions were just some I had while continuing to read Herbert Schlossberg's Idols for Destruction. Schlossberg writes that the two men who received the Nobel prize for discovering the DNA molecule, James Watson and Francis Crick, expressed "humanitarian" ideas about human life. Watson suggested that we change the legal definition of a "person" to be applicable only to infants older than three days. Crick called for a new ethical system, featuring abortion and infanticide, which would make it mandatory for all persons older than eighty years of age to be put to death!

Schlossberg points out that "the humanitarian ethic wishes to restrict the right to live and expand the right to die - and to kill." On the other hand, the Christian view is that "death is the enemy, the last enemy to be destroyed (1 Cor 15;56). In the Christian perspective the only comfort in death comes from the assurance of resurrection."